detach_volume

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must self-disclose behavior. It correctly identifies it as a write operation and mentions authorization, but does not detail side effects like whether the volume persists independently after detachment or if any data loss occurs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and providing necessary detail without unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given only two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the operation, authorization, and parameter sources. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes both parameters (volume id and server id) but the description adds value by specifying that the volume id comes from list_volumes and that serverId is a Nova server id, which provides context beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (Detach) and the resource (block storage volume from a cloud VM), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_volume, create_volume, and delete_volume.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It specifies the required scope (services:write) and indicates it's a 'plain write' operation. It also mentions that the volume id comes from list_volumes, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.